Teamwork Philosophy: Is a Boss's Success Tied to Their Subordinate's Achievements?

If the organizational design is to be believed, the success of the boss is directly linked with the success of the subordinate. By that logic, is the success of the subordinate directly linked to the success of the boss??? Though both are not all-encompassing, do you believe in this philosophy? Especially if you are strong believers in teamwork? Just curious.

Respected Mr. Nikhil,

Another important question has arisen. Thank you for it.

Of course, the success of the boss is directly linked with the success of the subordinate.

There will be some conditions regarding the success of the subordinate directly linked to the success of the boss:

1. If the boss goes out and gets business for the company individually, then it will be considered as the boss's success.

2. If the boss achieves success in a project with the contribution/effort of his subordinate, then it will be considered as the "success of the subordinate directly linked to the success of the boss."

Though both scenarios are not all-encompassing, do you believe in this philosophy? Especially if you are strong believers in teamwork?

Yes, I believe that subordinates and bosses are not equal (as the boss is the boss). Companies hire managers/bosses by reviewing their capabilities, knowledge, experience, efforts, and qualifications.

I am a bit confused by your question, "Especially if you are strong believers in teamwork...?" As bosses/managers are assigned to distribute work to their subordinates and together they carry the same to success.

Please correct me if I have taken the above question in the wrong direction.

Thank you.

Many times, HR managers emphasize teamwork more than anything else. Hence, the reference. Taking it forward, the team's success is counted as 'success'. There is little room for individual 'success'.

Dear Mr. Gurjar,

Boss invests his time in the development of his subordinates. By delegating and assigning tasks, the boss makes subordinates capable. Subordinates achieve their goals as they trust him and develop them. Hence, the success of subordinates is the success of the boss. The boss has control over the work of his subordinates.

The success of subordinates can further be the success of the boss when the subordinate is able to manage the boss. However, he does not control the boss. If you remove the subordinate, the boss gets the task done. But if you remove the boss, the subordinate has to rely on some other boss unless he is competent.

If we follow your logic, both should be mature and competent enough to understand the spirit.

Regards,
Vinod Bidwaik

Vinod,

Agreed, but you also believe that subordinates are competent (your post indicates you have assumed otherwise). Their subordinate's locus of control is smaller.

From your post, you are actually saying that the 'chain-of-responsibility' gets broken at the boss. I am a little apprehensive about this view. Is my understanding correct?

Sayeed is talking about selective rewarding. How is it translated into practice? Just curious...

Sayeed, would you like to respond to SAK? There are issues with selectivity.

Objective Measure for Maturity

SAK, do you have an objective measure for maturity? From your post, it won't work if the maturity is low.

Sorry for the late response,
I do agree with SAK as organization should work like a Team, but there will be some area where individual does work and get reward.

Yes, the selective rewards does occur in every organization.
They can be translate in practice in many ways, just needed the correct timing and the method of the work by boss or organization.
Let me give the example – The Business Develop manager:- He is the person to expand/develop the business of the company (I m not saying he alone, but his main responsibility is to do so) ,
Once he got the new business to company, they share with subordinates where they need to work on it efficiently and complete the project successfully.
In this scenario organization first Reward BDM on his success, later all subordinates.. So I believe this come Selective category.

Please correct me if again I m on wrong direction.

Thanks,

Dear Mr. Nikhil,

I do have experience in sales and marketing where I was compensated for my hard work. However, I took the support of my co-workers and shared the fruits of my labor with them personally. This is what I call teamwork.

Let me give you an example: A friend of mine working in XYZ Organization gets databases/contacts of target customers from his superior. His job is to meet them all and try his best to bring business to the company. However, the rewards are enjoyed by his superior for simply providing him with contacts. This is not a fair process.

When it comes to maturity, it is the "thought process" where one should be well-versed in positive visualization and problem-solving skills. Not everything in this world can be measured accurately, but one can educate individuals to help them understand the actual process and procedure.

With profound regards,

A very practical question arises in every organization that rarely gets answered and seldom addressed with rewards. I always felt it has to work both ways.

A CAPTAIN is As Good As his Team. In Corporate or Team Game, the Captain rarely works alone. Hence, if the 'BOSS', or better, the 'Team Leader' is Successful, the Acknowledgement (& Rewards) are due to the Coworkers also.

However, this is possible with a Project where a Team is Assigned a particular job (Project-Team Matrix). We see a better implementation of it in Sales & Marketing (a particular Zone or a District or an Identifiable Small Territory Performing much better).

Developing Good Deputies & getting the Best from the Deputies is a SKILL the BOSS must have to be successful (Limited Resources, always). Obviously, the Boss needs to be Complimented for Junior's Success (for the guidance, support & freedom for work he has given).

The SHARING of SUCCESS can be used to CORPORATE ADVANTAGE of MOTIVATION for the ENTIRE GROUP.

Sharing Success means Rewards. Apart from Financial Rewards (which are important) a Certificate to depict the Achievement of the Group of the Team and giving it at a (small) function arranged immediately or at the Annual Gathering makes a lot of difference. Not only are the team members PROUD, but others may look forward to the Glory, thereby motivating the entire Organization.

Dr. Ulhas Ganu

Many companies have bonus payouts based on their organizational performance. In some ways, this question has shades of complexity. It is interesting to note the variety present in this context.

Ulhas, your point is valid; perhaps one needs to gather more insights from other HR practitioners. The effectiveness of a captain being as good as his team is debatable; I may not entirely agree with that concept. Do you truly believe in it? I understand there may be certain conditions attached, but your entire argument relies on the unconditional acceptance of this statement.

Sayeed, your point is also valid. In an army scenario, there is often no room for any other model than the one mentioned. There seems to be little emphasis on the individual in such a setting. Should this model be exclusive to organizations with a very strict 'chain of command'? Do you think selective rewarding should be eliminated in such environments? While army personnel still receive medals, the regiment seems to hold more significance.

Maturity, as mentioned by SAK, is challenging to quantify, assuming he attempted some quantitative method to do so.

Another intriguing aspect is the positive correlation between the ratings of bosses and their subordinates when the bosses receive good ratings.

I would like to invite views from Simhan and Archana on these points.

Hi Nikhil,

You are, in a way, right. Even I do not mean it totally. What I meant was a Captain's success rating depends upon associates. The Captain may be brilliant, but if his personnel average or even awful (due to nepotism, favoritism by him or management), then there can be a gaffe, and by the performance yardstick, the captain fails.

A top-class tennis player and a cricket captain would illustrate what I mean. A top lawyer not getting the correct brief on time, a top Quality Assurance Manager having a few poor analysts, a top Marketing Manager having poor Product Managers and/or Medical Reps with poor communication skills failing the entire strategy, was in my mind. I agree, "Brilliant solo workers may win, but for bigger projects, teams' overall participation and performance should matter."

Indeed, as suggested by you, HR has a major role. Maybe they can come up with an organizational SOP for recognition to prevent personal likes and dislikes from playing dirty tricks.

Dr. Ulhas Ganu

Your post indicates two things: The system failed to reward them, and you also believe in selectivity (from your post, it appears you don't share things every time!)... Or have I misunderstood? Do you think it should always be the case?

It is said that 50% of our 'fate' is based on what our parents did/do and 50% is left to us... Is the analogy appropriate here?

In a perfectly aligned organization, the boss's reward must DIRECTLY be linked to the subordinate's reward... Else, there is a conflict of objectives at some level... So, being directly rewarded for the boss's work is of course there... 100%.... Is the assumption incorrect?

I had made a point before that a captain is as good as his team—not wholly, but it is true to some extent. When we look at the India Cricket Team's performance on the recent England tour, we see the same Dhoni came a cropper because the core team players were missing. To implement a strategy successfully, one needs competent colleagues. A few weak members can be carried, but not many. Thus, the team leader should have the freedom to choose the majority of colleagues, and the reward of success should certainly be shared.

Dear Mr. Nikhil,

The system is a set of procedures defining a process. As you are aware, there are not many systems related to rewarding an employee. To me, the whole process should be simplified, unbiased, and a two-way process.

1) There are factors associated with one's success where one may rely on anyone (whether it be the boss or a team leader/superior), but we can't attribute the success to an individual. We must define their involvement associated with the outcome. This is teamwork.

2) At times, an individual might have achieved their targets without being associated with their team members. In this scenario, how can we relate a team member's (individual) success with their boss?

Since you mentioned that I don't share much, let me share a live example with you while correlating it with your quote:

You said, "It is said that 50% of our 'fate' is based on what our parents did/do and 50% is left to us... Is this analogy appropriate here?" Actually, it's not all about fate; it's about our role and involvement.

An XYZ organization was awarded a couple of projects. The boss proudly shared this with his team members. His team had supported him throughout the process, where his involvement was just 15-20%. To execute the project, he needed a dedicated team; otherwise, the boss would fail to meet the client's deadline. Dedicated/experienced team members were appointed, and work is in full swing.

Kindly note these points:

1) Without dedicated teamwork, the project document wouldn't have been submitted on time. Please understand individuals' involvement ratio that defines their responsibilities associated with the outcome.

2) The total work is divided into bits and pieces, where everyone shares a piece of the responsibility.

3) Though the boss delegates respective assignments to his team members, the majority of the work is done by the team members.

4) Without the team members' contribution, the project cannot be completed on time.

5) Team members who worked hard or smart were not compensated to the minimum extent that the boss was compensated for securing or bringing business to the company. The system of rewarding employees (or bonus pay) was not implemented by the boss itself.

6) Employee satisfaction levels were not measured when they were primarily responsible for executing the project on time.

7) Employees had tried their best to meet the boss's expectations, but the boss did not reciprocate.

8) Success was felt/shared by the boss (with a few close team members involved) only because employees did not feel the same as they were not compensated proportionally.

9) The boss only believes in generating revenue but never understood that if employees were rewarded proportionately, they would elevate the organization's standards, help the organization generate more revenue, and much more can be expected.

Henceforth, the below mentioned is only possible when a teamwork strategy is adopted, as we are only discussing the success associated with the boss and his team members but not compensation, which is missing.

1) "The success of the boss is directly linked with the success of the subordinate," and

2) "The success of the subordinate is directly linked to the success of the boss only when the boss is supportive/cooperative and much more."

The word "maturity" is not difficult to define because it is visible in all our activities and is associated with our lives 24x7. It's not just limited to doing everything right or wrong; it's all about perfection, perception, knowledge, and wisdom.

A true boss/perfect leader will never worry about his own success ratio; instead, he will drive/support/coordinate with his team to achieve success at all levels because he knows that his success is associated with his team. Hence, "we = teamwork."

There are qualified, skilled, talented, passionate employees who want to take on additional responsibilities, prove themselves, and may want to do more than their bosses did. A true boss will allow and help such employees to unleash their hidden talent because he doesn't possess an inferiority complex or feelings of insecurity that his team members may outdo him.

On the other hand, you will find bosses possessing an inferiority complex, feeling insecure. Such individuals will never trust their team members, will not coordinate/cooperate, or give them sufficient room to play their own game. What is missing here is a "self-directed team."

Kindly feel free to clarify if you have any inquiries regarding my views.

With profound regards,

Regards